Three infants born to noncitizen parents are at the center of Barbara v. Trump, a class‑action lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to limit birthright citizenship for some children born in the United States. The Supreme Court has agreed to review the dispute over the order, which targets babies whose mothers lack legal status or are in the country on temporary visas and whose fathers are neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents.
The Barbara v. Trump case is one of several lawsuits contesting Executive Order 14160, President Donald Trump’s directive instructing federal agencies not to treat certain children born in the United States as citizens at birth if their parents are undocumented or in the country on temporary visas. According to case summaries and contemporary reporting, the order was signed in early 2025 and quickly drew legal challenges from affected families, civil‑rights groups and several states.
A separate Supreme Court decision issued earlier this year addressed the use of so‑called universal, or nationwide, injunctions against executive actions, limiting lower courts’ ability to block federal policies for everyone while a case is pending. Legal analysts say that ruling has made class‑action lawsuits a more prominent vehicle for challenging the birthright citizenship order, because relief granted to a certified class can still protect large groups of people.
In Barbara v. Trump, three families serve as lead plaintiffs. They are noncitizen parents without lawful permanent resident status who, according to court filings, delivered children on U.S. soil after the executive order took effect. The namesake plaintiff, identified in legal documents under the pseudonym Barbara, is described as a Honduran national married to another noncitizen who recently gave birth to her fourth child in the United States. Under the administration’s interpretation of the order, that baby would not be treated as a U.S. citizen at birth.
Advocates have brought similar challenges in other cases, including one widely referred to in legal commentary as CASA v. Trump, which focuses on many of the same provisions of the executive order. That case, like Barbara v. Trump, has proceeded as a proposed or certified class action, with plaintiffs seeking to ensure that children born while the lawsuits are pending are not denied documentation recognizing them as U.S. citizens.
Conchita Cruz, co‑executive director of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, told reporters in recent interviews about her work on these cases that parents have been reaching out in large numbers, fearful that their children could be left in legal limbo. She said hundreds or potentially thousands of families expecting children in the United States have contacted advocacy organizations to ask whether their babies will still be citizens.
"Parents I have found have wanted to not just protect their children’s rights, but stand up on behalf of all children who should be born U.S. citizens," Cruz said in remarks describing families’ motivations for joining the litigation. Many plaintiffs are proceeding under pseudonyms, a common practice in immigration and civil‑rights cases, to reduce the risk of government retaliation, private threats or exposure that could lead to persecution in their home countries.
Advocates warn that if the executive order were ultimately upheld, affected families could face deportation and detention and their children could be at risk of statelessness if neither the United States nor the parents’ countries recognize them as citizens. Children without recognized nationality can struggle to obtain passports, identification documents or access to basic services such as education and health care.
For some families from countries with strained diplomatic ties to Washington or reduced consular services, the risks may be especially acute. If parents cannot secure recognition of their children’s nationality abroad and the United States declines to acknowledge them as citizens at birth, newborns could be left without an effective claim to any country.
Cruz and other advocates have praised the families who agreed to participate in the lawsuits, noting that many did so while navigating the physical and emotional stresses of pregnancy, childbirth and uncertain immigration status. They argue that the outcome of the Supreme Court’s review will determine whether the long‑standing understanding of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause continues to protect most children born on U.S. soil, shaping the futures of immigrant families across the country.
